Sandhya Malik vs Col Satender Malik
2017 Latest Caselaw 3183 Del

$~19
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      MAT.APP.(F.C.) 112/2017, CM No. 23881/2017, CM No. 23882/2017

       SANDHYA MALIK                                          ..... Appellant
                           Through:   Mr. Padam Kant Saxena, Advocate.
                           versus

       COL SATENDER MALIK                                 ..... Respondent
                    Through:          None.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

                         ORDER

% 11.07.2017

1. The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the orders dated 06.06.2017, 01.07.2017 and 03.07.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, South, Saket in HMA No. 412/2013 filed by the respondent/husband for seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

2. After arguments were addressed for some time, we had indicated to learned counsel for the appellant that we are not persuaded to interfere with the impugned orders. At that stage, he had sought a passover to obtain instructions from his client.

3. The matter has been mentioned by learned counsel before the lunch recess to state that he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal. His only request is for expungement of the observations made by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, in the sixth para on the first page and the second last para of the last of the order dated 03.07.2017, wherein certain personal remarks have been made about him to the effect that he has conducted himself in an unprofessional manner and sought to overawe the Court by declaring his status in the vakalatnama as a retired Additional District & Sessions Judge.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant assures us that henceforth he shall not use the vakalatnamas already printed wherein he has been described as a retired Additional District & Sessions Judge.

5. On the said assurance, it is deemed appropriate to expunge the remarks adverse to the learned counsel for the appellant in the order dated 03.07.2017.

7. The appeal is however dismissed as not pressed at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant.

HIMA KOHLI, J

DEEPA SHARMA, J JULY 11, 2017 ss